It turns out this (STIR/SHAKEN) was signed into law last week and the clock
started ticking on 12/30/19 for us to implement within 18 months. "S.151 -
Pallone-Thune Telephone Robocall Abuse Criminal Enforcement and Deterrence
Act"
https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/senate-bill/151/text
I wouldn't say it's all that easy because you have to be certified as a
CLEC, Interconnected VOIP, or Wireless provider in order to get access
to numbering resources. A lot of people missed that part in the
guidelines because it was not worded clearly and they didn't know that
you can't get
On Tue, Dec 31, 2019 at 8:54 AM Mark Lindsey wrote:
>
> My presentation focused Bad Actors who don't register with anybody. But
> after my presentation, Jon Peterson (who wrote much of the SHAKEN RFCs)
> added another security gap in the American implementation: anybody can get
> an OCN and CLLI
> The idea of "authenticating the incoming calls" only applies if you're
really going to block incoming calls.
Sort of. Even if the goal is to update the CLID (e.g. Spam likely) one
needs to authenticate it. That is, to do the verify the Identity.
> anybody can get an OCN and CLLI code
Agreed.
> On Dec 31, 2019, at 11:06 AM, Pete Eisengrein wrote:
>
> Thoughts on implementation/technologies? Where in the network would you do
> your assertion (softswitch, SBC, other?),
Many of the implementations allow SHAKEN over SIP, using a 302 to add the
Identity header. This is much more
> The solution, of course, is to use SIP over TCP.
Agreed, but that too has implications. Maybe your carriers support TCP,
maybe they don't. Also, the memory footprint on gear just got bigger to
manage the TCP overhead. We've also seen odd incidents around TCP (not
releasing sessions and
eops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
Peter,
the initial rollout of S/S does not include delegated certificates. It's being rushed so at least basic call blocking/tracing can be done by tier one carriers. It is usable in the limited design but doesn't cover
tvp.com<mailto:mgra...@mstvp.com>
>> o: (713) 861-4005
>> c: (713) 201-1262
>> sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
>>
>>
>> From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Glen Gerhard
>> Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:59 AM
>> To: voiceops@voiceops.org
>> Subject
Michael Graves
mgra...@mstvp.com<mailto:mgra...@mstvp.com>
o: (713) 861-4005
c: (713) 201-1262
sip:mgra...@mjg.onsip.com
From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Glen Gerhard
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2019 11:59 AM
To: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it
, 2019 11:59 AM
To: voiceops@voiceops.org
Subject: Re: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
Peter,
the initial rollout of S/S does not include delegated certificates. It's being
rushed so at least basic call blocking/tracing can be done by tier one
carriers. It is usable in the l
Peter,
the initial rollout of S/S does not include delegated
certificates. It's being rushed so at least basic call
blocking/tracing can be done by tier one carriers. It is usable in
the limited design but doesn't cover all use cases. Using the
> On Dec 19, 2019, at 12:09 AM, Peter Beckman wrote:
>
> Is STIR/SHAKEN not really completed and ready for deployment yet? The FCC
> and larger carriers seem to be moving forward with test implementations
> without of TN authorization and delegation.
Oh, thank goodness. I was worried for a
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, Calvin Ellison wrote:
If you want to keep up to date on this, join the ATIS IP NNI and SIP Forum
mailing lists. You'll see frequent notifications as the policy and protocol
documents get updated.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM Peter Beckman wrote:
In my case, we use
If you want to keep up to date on this, join the ATIS IP NNI and SIP Forum
mailing lists. You'll see frequent notifications as the policy and protocol
documents get updated.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 3:49 PM Peter Beckman wrote:
> In my case, we use different termination carriers than our
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, John Levine wrote:
In article you write:
Sure, but have you ever tried to contact a carrier for which you do not
have a business relationship and get them to do something, and you are
smaller and less consequential than they are?
We can block Hooli, but now OUR
"The ALG fixed everything!" -- said nobody, ever.
But ALGs are increasingly meddling in TCP streams too. Some of them even
do insidious fingerprinting to where switching ports won't throw them.
For those pathological cases, TLS is the only solution.
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 06:34:43PM -0500,
On 12/17/19 6:24 PM, Alex Balashov wrote:
There are many other reasons why SIP messages are getting bigger and
bigger, of which STIR/SHAKEN is not the first, second or fifth: other
standards, WebRTC interop, more/wideband codecs in SDP bodies,
SRTP(-SDES/DTLS), support for other features and
On Tue, Dec 17, 2019 at 03:38:39PM -0500, Dovid Bender wrote:
> The bigger issue you are going to have is the larger packets. So many
> devices out there can't seem to fragment packets correctly.
There are many other reasons why SIP messages are getting bigger and
bigger, of which STIR/SHAKEN is
In article you write:
> Sure, but have you ever tried to contact a carrier for which you do not
> have a business relationship and get them to do something, and you are
> smaller and less consequential than they are?
>
> We can block Hooli, but now OUR customers are livid, and Hooli doesn't
>
anies.com
-Original Message-
From: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops-boun...@voiceops.org>> On Behalf Of Peter Beckman
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:58 PM
To: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>>
Subject: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
A few
To: VoiceOps
Subject: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
A few months ago I attended an FCC STIR/SHAKEN discussion in Washington DC.
They didn't get deep into the technical details but there were a bunch of
big carrier representatives there.
If you haven't followed STIR/SHAKEN, it's
On Tue, 17 Dec 2019, m...@astrocompanies.com wrote:
Good question. First, if you're using Hooli, you'll have to migrate to
Pipernet sooner or later. Their middle-out compression provides much better
call quality so it's worth the effort to migrate.
Doh! What's their Weissman score?
But
ial attestations if we/they
>>> choose to.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> Mike Ray, MBA, CNE, CTE
>>> Astro Companies, LLC
>>> 11523 Palm Brush Trail #401
>>> Lakewood Ranch, FL 34202
>>> DIRECT:
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:58 PM
To: VoiceOps mailto:voiceops@voiceops.org>>
Subject: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
A few months ago I attended an FCC STIR/SHAKEN discussion in
Washington DC.
They didn't get deep into the technical details but t
.com
>
> -Original Message-----
> From: VoiceOps On Behalf Of Peter Beckman
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2019 2:58 PM
> To: VoiceOps
> Subject: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
>
> A few months ago I attended an FCC STIR/SHAKEN discussion in Washingt
To: VoiceOps
Subject: [VoiceOps] STIR/SHAKEN Discussion: Will it help?
A few months ago I attended an FCC STIR/SHAKEN discussion in Washington DC.
They didn't get deep into the technical details but there were a bunch of
big carrier representatives there.
If you haven't followed STIR/SHAKEN, it's
A few months ago I attended an FCC STIR/SHAKEN discussion in Washington DC.
They didn't get deep into the technical details but there were a bunch of
big carrier representatives there.
If you haven't followed STIR/SHAKEN, it's really just an additional SIP
header that contains
27 matches
Mail list logo
